Posts for Samsara


Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
rythin wrote:
I've always felt like Standard was missing a goal for something along the lines of "forgoes the use of one common glitch", where the movie can still feature many glitches of various severity, but omits one particular one that would otherwise be repeated throughout the movie.
I've been wanting something like this for a while, but it does fall victim to being hard to apply consistently. That's not to say we necessarily have to always apply it completely consistently, but at the very least we need sort of an all-encompassing shell to tell people what to go for. The way I put it when feos and I were talking about it was something like a glitch "fundamentally changing the nature of the game", which is something that would have to be determined case-by-case. It could be as obvious as Zelda 2's L+R glitch or as subtle as this run shooting things outside of window bounds just as long as the core gameplay is noticeably and meaningfully changed. I think a big problem here though is that we run the risk of overpopulating a game with similar branches, which as much as I tend to think "What's the issue with adding more branches?" these days, it wouldn't really make sense to have "any%", "any% that uses a movement glitch but foregoes major skips", "any% that uses major skips but foregoes a movement glitch", and "any% that doesn't use any glitches" all alongside each other. Even in the case of this game, I'm wondering whether or not it actually makes sense to have "any% that uses no window bounds and a level skip glitch" and "any% that uses the level skip glitch but stays within bounds" alongside each other. Were someone(stuff) to make a version that foregoes both, would that be a separate branch as well? I think we might have to make it a sort of nebulous thing where we can accept any of these kinds of branches as standard, but depending on the game and the glitches there may be cases where we have to figure out what branches are worth keeping published together and what branches might have to go to Alternative or Playground.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Sorry for the minor delay on this response!
WarHippy wrote:
That's why there would be a specific trigger to not require an input file (such as typing a specific word into the Branch label or checking a box). Even if for some reason a person did such a thing, it would be pretty easy to ask them to upload an input file. Any judge could then add it to the submission just like when anyone uploads an improvement after submitting.
ViGadeomes wrote:
So a solution, if it's still possible to recover them for old showcase events and not impossible by some tech limitations that i'm unaware of, would be to still ask for input file(s) ? So the concern about preventing cheats by others users shouldn't be that of a problem. We shouldn't look at these input files extensively during judgement if there is one needed ofc.
Combining these two posts, I think I'd rather take the option of still requiring input files over not requiring them universally. Showcase runs could just use dummy files (like Triforce% does), which wouldn't even require any changes to the submission system, and there's still the potential of discussing better options going forward while having a working one in place already. I'll admit I might be a bit (or a lot) too worried about the potential for abuse, whether intentional or unintentional, so I'd need to be certain that whatever system we end up going with in the future is foolproof enough to seamlessly replace our current full input file requirement.
KennyMan666 wrote:
So my thought on this is the question of that since they differ from the regular movies on the site in key ways, and have already been showcased on live events with the videos out there on stuff like GDQ's own Youtube channel, do they really need to go through the same submission and publication process as everything else, to the point of creating dummy input files to force them into the existing system that's clearly not made with them in mind?
Keep in mind this is a short term solution, the idea being that we put something solid in place ASAP so we can actually start accepting these kinds of runs instead of taking months to come up with and implement a brand new plan for the site. I'd like for a fully separate system in the future, ideally one that can be overseen by the Ambassador staff or even some new team of volunteers, but it would be a lot of extra work at the moment, both in terms of planning work from the staff/community and the actual dev work needed to put everything in place.
Since they are TAS content made by the TASVideos community, having them on the site with stuff like submission comments, technical explanations, and things like that is of course something very desirable. But many of them have such different goals, some have been more like art installations than gameplay, many have been made with a different intent from the start. They've been made more for spectacle than showing off theoretical perfect gameplay. They're often conceptually different from even playarounds. I think it would make more sense to just create a separate section of the website for them. Another heading in Movies, under Publications and Submissions. "Showcases", or "Events", or something like that. A list of them, similar to the Publications list, and individual pages for each one, similar to the other Movie pages—but both made for this purpose, without requiring any input file, or anything like that, that simply does not apply to them. The way I'm seeing is that because they were shown off at live events, they're effectively already published. Unless there's some reason to not have them featured on the website, it just seems kinda silly to overcomplicate it and treat them like regular submissions/publications when they so obviously do not fit in that box.
They are going to be separate. Effectively a copy of publications/movie pages, just going to a different place. The URL would be something like https://tasvideos.org/1E to differentiate them from publications and to give them a separate home. The logic all checks out, though: We don't need to verify them and they are effectively already published works, and there has always been a reason to feature them on the site, but in the short term it is just much easier for us to use the submission/publication system while we work out bigger, better plans for the direction of the site.
SmashManiac wrote:
IFirst, on which grounds would someone be allowed to submit Event content? There is a risk of selection bias by limiting it to staff and their subjective opinion as to who deserves the related permission. This is probably fine short-term, but it may become a problem once people outside of the TASBot community would like to contribute.
The aim would be that it's open to anyone who shows TAS content at an event, yeah. Locking it to staff or by request would definitely be a short term only thing, and that's mainly because I haven't really seen event content outside of TASBot or something adjacent to that community so it makes more sense to limit it for now to the people we know are actually doing it. Granted, that could be because we've been so slow that it feels like we may even be actively discouraging it. Hopefully this will remedy that possible discouragement.
Second, on which grounds would an Event submission be accepted vs rejected? The standard must obviously be lowered for such publications compared to pure TASes, but where should the line be drawn? I think it's important for Event submissions to include all documentation and custom software required for reproduction, at the very least. I'm not sure if anything else should be required.
My honest take is that it can be handled case-by-case and doesn't need to be too strict. I suppose titling this thread specifically to be about TASBot's showcases is accidentally tunnel visioning people into the showstopper ACE stuff, but we can and should accommodate for anything and everything outside of that as well. If someone shows a block of already published TASes during a marathon, we could give it an event entry and not even need to do any verification work on it. If someone does a panel at a convention that only talks about TASes or TASing, we could give that an event entry as well and, again, there wouldn't need to be any sort of formal process to verify it. Documentation is probably the farthest I'd go with a strict requirement and that would only be for ACE/real hardware stuff: Given how complicated those runs are to make, I'd be surprised if there was no documentation at all, so it doesn't feel unreasonable to ask for it as a verification step. Anything past that would be greatly appreciated, but it should just be considered a bonus and not a requirement.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: HL Unban and Brief Explanation
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
It has been 3 months, so HappyLee's ban has been lifted. This submission is Playground-eligible as a result, now that he is able to consent to that happening. I've explained this to a few people who've asked already, so I figured it was best to address it publicly: After some internal discussion, we decided that the "full rationale post" we were planning to make regarding HL's ban wasn't really necessary. The heat of the moment and the gravity of the situation at the time made us feel it was worth wrapping up in a bigger box with a bigger bow, but as time went on it sounded less and less like a good idea. At best, it would have just been a lot of words that all summed up to "he was disruptively making accusations towards senior staff and repeatedly ignored all warnings to stop", and at worst it would have kept the discussion alive to a point where it may not have been salvageable. Apologies to anyone who may have been waiting for this, and further apologies for not addressing it sooner! I'd like to ask that this post be the end of this particular discussion in this thread, and that any and all further posts stay on the topic of the submission itself. To clarify, I'm not intending to silence discussion of these events entirely, I just want this submission thread to finally be about the submission in case there's a consensus to move it over to Playground. Any questions about this can be directed to me, and I'll be happy to answer them.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
WarHippy wrote:
I love the idea of creating an Event tier and having it be an option on the submission page. I really don't think there's a need to give a special role for a user to be able submit them to the site. There's already ways to deal with people who spam/abuse the submission queue. As for actual implementation, typing 'Event' somewhere in the branch name could allow the submission without an input file (but maybe require a video link in the Embedded Video section). I don't know if that's a feasible option, but it seems cleaner than adding a checkbox or something to the submission page.
Spam and abuse are only a part of my overall concern. In a way, my main concern is actually the opposite of that: Abuse would be a lot easier without an input file requirement, of course (nothing could stop someone stealing a video, hosting it on their channel, and claiming it as their own, for example), but it would be people trying to submit legitimately that would be more troublesome to deal with in my opinion. I feel like making it universal would accidentally set up the idea that we no longer require input files for any submission, which is something we've been asked to do numerous times in the past and will never actually do. I'm a bit terrified at the idea of implying such a thing and then constantly having to explain to people that, no, it's only allowed in very rare cases. All that being said, there can definitely be a better way to implement it than making it a permission that has to be given to your account. It just needs to be clear to casual users that the option of submitting without an input file only applies to Event runs and should not be used in any other circumstance.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: Progress Report: New Admin, No More Limited Users, and Important Changes
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Hey, hi, hello. Welcome to a new occasional format for news posts! Over the past couple years, TASVideos has been making changes to itself. We rebuilt the site from the ground up, we overhauled how we showcase runs by rebranding Vault and Moons, and we've been gradually making a multitude of changes to our rules to both allow and accept more submissions. That last category is the most common, however a lot of the changes tend to be smaller ones that would end up spamming the news section if we announced all of them. They're still worth pointing out, though, so that's where these progress reports are going to come in, assuming that I remember to actually write them. In this report, I'll be talking about our brand new third Admin, finally announcing the TAS of 2022 after 3 months of forgetting, detailing important changes to submission moderation and playaround judgement, and finally asking for feedback on a much needed addition to the site in the form of live event showcases.
First, let's talk about that new Admin. Hi! It's me! Samsara! In the ultimate act of narcissism, I'm announcing my own promotion! Ironically, I'm not good at talking myself up, so I'm also the worst person that could be doing this. I've historically been helping far outside of my role for a few years now, so staff got together and decided that they would make it impossible for me to do that from now on by giving me the highest role possible that isn't outright owning the site. I'm very happy to be here, I feel blessed to have had the opportunity at all, and I'm looking forward to doing the exact same things I was doing before but with more perceived authority! See, I told you I wasn't good at talking myself up. Despite my promotion, I am still acting as Senior Judge for now, and I remain the primary point of contact for matters related to judgements and submissions, but now you can also contact me about admin stuff too! Don't worry, I don't bite unless you ask nicely.
First, and most pressingly in my opinion, I finally remembered to announce the TAS of the Year winner in a news post! The TAS of 2022 is... [4685] SNES Super Mario World "glitchfest" by IgorOliveira666 in 2:54:33.62! A well-deserved win for a TAS that people have been wanting for over a decade! It's absolutely well worth your time. Bring some snacks, but don't let Yoshi eat them if you don't want to risk reality completely shattering around you. For a full Awards recap, see this forum thread. Thanks to everyone who participated! Winners, nominees, voters, watchers, thank you all!
Recently, we had a community discussion on the way we revoke a user's submission privileges, known here as "limiting" them. With our rules and regulations relaxing over the past few years, we felt it was necessary to revisit the way we've handled limits, and with the community's guidance we decided that we were going about it in an unnecessarily harsh way. Historically, we were limiting users mostly because they were submitting too many suboptimal runs. The intent was to encourage the submitter to hone their skills by working with us, and once they were able to prove themselves as TASers we would allow them to submit again. What actually happened was a lot of discouragement and driving people away, and honestly I apologize that it took this long for us to realize we were doing that. Prior to this discussion, we had 23 Limited Users. Over the course of the discussion, these users were re-evaluated, and I'm proud to say that we no longer have a single person with the Limited User role on the site. 16 users had their privileges restored. These were all users who had done nothing more than submit multiple suboptimal runs. As such, I've elected not to name them publicly in order to not put a metaphorical target on them. The other 7 users were banned outright, primarily for plagiarism or ban/limit evasion, and will also not be named. Going forward, limiting users will be a very rare occurrence. It will generally only happen in cases where a user is abusing the submission system in a way that would not result in them being banned from the site. Also, if we do end up limiting users, it will not be for an indefinite period. There will always be a strict time limit from now on. Hopefully, this will result not only in more submissions overall, but more improvement from those we would have otherwise turned away. Once again, I'd like to apologize to anyone who was limited, and I'd like to extend that apology to anyone in the community who was affected by the fear of "not being good enough" for us.
Speaking of relaxing things in relation to submissions, I'd like to bring up what I think is a long-awaited change in hopes that it will inspire people to create new TASes that take advantage of it. The change has to do with "playaround" runs, i.e runs that aim purely to entertain the viewer rather than speedrunning. For an example of one, scroll up a bit! Until recently, we were requiring game completion on these runs. This, in retrospect, really stacked the deck against them! Plenty of games have playaround potential, but not all of them are Super Mario World with its tight 3 hours of variety spanning the entirety of the game. On top of that, creativity in and of itself is not a limitless resource. Even the most creative people may have trouble keeping a TAS entertaining from title screen to end credits. We want to promote endings that feel natural, and that's why we've relaxed the rule. Playaround runs are no longer required to beat the game. They must still have a sort of "defined" endpoint, though in practice this just means the run has to visually finish in some way. Examples of this include game over screens, hard crashes, even something as simple as quitting to the title, just as long as there's an obvious signal that the run has ended. Make it feel intentional and not like you just gave up and you should be good to go.
The final thing I'd like to address is an important discussion that's currently in progress again after a long time of it... not... being in progress. Anyone who's looked at the workbench over the past 6 months or so has likely noticed that Delayed run sitting at the top of the list: Triforce%, the TAS block showcase run from Summer Games Done Quick 2022. There are several of these big showcase runs over the nearly 10 years that GDQs have had TAS blocks, and yet out of all of them we have only accepted one. There is kind of a good reason for this: That one run happens to be the only showcase run with an easily verifiable and reproducible input file. Every run past that has had increasingly complicated setups that are impossible to accurately reproduce. They rely on extra hardware at times and live input at others, and that's not something we're able to verify. It wasn't exactly unreasonable for us to declare these runs unacceptable. What IS unreasonable, though, is that we never tried to make them acceptable, and that's what we want to correct. I put together a proposal for a short term implementation of a system that can finally handle these showcase runs, and we want the community to weigh in on it. We do intend to discuss and possibly implement a much more in-depth overhaul in the future, but I feel it's necessary to have something concrete in place soon, as this has already been delayed for quite a while. If you're reading this and you have an opinion on it, let us know what that opinion is! I'm especially looking to hear from people in the TASBot community who may not interact with TASVideos much, as I feel this has been kind of a dividing line between our communities for a while and I absolutely want to mend it in any way I possibly can.
That's all I've got for now. If you have any questions or concerns, whether it be with anything in this news post or anything on the site in general, my PMs are always open! For those who prefer live, instant gratification, you can also find me and my spiffy new yellow name on our Discord server. Other admins are available as well!
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
We love a good redemption arc on TASVideos.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: Time to revive this
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Surprise! I'm reviving this discussion! Several months too late!!! As you may have seen on the workbench for a very long time, Triforce% was submitted and has been stuck in limbo since then, as we haven't quite come to a consensus on how we want things to work, and a lot of our proposals and ideas are maybe a bit too grand for us to implement without a lot of community discussion first, and frankly we've been waiting on this for too long. As such, I want to publicly draft the changes we can make sooner rather than later, so that we can get what we need in place now and then have discussions over the changes we can make going forward.
I see two things that we could do right now. One is the ability to submit movies without input files. I think we can just tie this to a permission and deal it out to staff for now, but if there's enough interest from people in the community we can always create a new role that can be given on request to anyone who wishes to submit live event material. Just as long as it isn't universal. The other is a new URL code. I'm partial to xxxxE for Event, but it really could be any letter that isn't one we're already using. I see these pages being identical to Movie pages, just without the little "Emulator Replay" bit at the bottom with the input file in it, and maybe no "A/V files" either unless we want to upload backups to Archive. For short-term implementation, "Event" could just be a new class like Standard/Alternative, and when a submission is accepted to it then it tells the site to publish to the xxxxE code instead of the xxxxM code. With the above, this is how I see the submission process playing out:
  1. A TAS is created for a live event, and the creator(s) wish to submit it to TASVideos, but do not have a submittable input file.
  2. The creator(s) ask for and receive permission to submit movies without input files if they do not already have it.
  3. The run is submitted, using the official recording or VOD as the encode.
  4. The run is accepted to the Event class.
  5. The run is published with an "E" URL code, using the official recording or VOD as the listed encode.
  6. We can also mirror the VOD to TASVideosChannel with permission from the submitters. This would be a lovely bonus, but not a requirement.

Is there anything else we need? Do we need either of these things at all? Is it even feasible from a site code perspective? Given how long it's been since Triforce% was submitted and how much longer it's been since I started this discussion, we could really use answers to those questions. I'd just like to ask that any new ideas be kept simple: As much as I love seeing grand ideas (we have a few huge proposals being discussed internally and I'm absolutely open to hearing big ideas from the community as well), it's important that we get some structure in place as soon as possible. Once we do, I'm more than happy to discuss where to go from there. Ideally, I'd like a consensus before May so we can officially pass it off to the devs, but I'll settle for me not taking another 9 months to continue the discussion ._.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
FINALLY, MY POWER IS ETERNAL
Uh, I mean, thanks, everyone 💙
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
My natural feeling is accepting things that both look sloppy and are sloppy, would feel anticlimactic to a lot of people who watch TASes. But if a run looks clean and quick, and optimization has been attempted at all, we may try being more lax.
I absolutely support being more lax in places, and it's something I've been promoting with the Judges as of late, but I'd also like to promote the community coming forward on submissions and saying "Hey, let's all make this the best it can be" instead of "Hey, go back to the drawing board and do it better." I'll put it this way: We've called the submission list the "Workbench" in the past, so we should be treating it like one. The way TASing works, every single TAS is essentially an eternal work in progress. Even when it's finished, anyone can come in and tweak it further to make it better. That's something we should be promoting. Instead of "If you don't like a run, improve it yourself", it really should be "If you don't like a run, help the author make it better".
I think the discussion about limiting has wound down enough to call it complete. The majority of comments and votes are in favor of making the system less harsh, so it will be going forward. We'll keep the role for now just in case a situation pops up where we feel it's necessary without banning a user outright, but it may end up being removed entirely in the future. If we do end up limiting anyone from this day on, I'm also going to make sure it's understood to be a temporary thing, most likely with a defined time limit instead of "until you prove yourself". As I stated in my last post, I re-evaluated every Limited User about a week ago and, like a Redditor starting a new gacha game, re-roled until I was satisfied. Currently, nobody is limited, and that makes me a happy Senior Judge. Thanks to everyone for the feedback and comments!
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
It won't. libTAS is built strictly for and around Linux architecture. Asking for it to run on Windows would be like asking an NES emulator to play Playstation games.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
The thing is, any kind of limitation is going to discourage improvement, regardless of whether or not it's timed. Timed would definitely be better than what we currently have, but any kind of limit is still implying "You're not good enough, we don't want you here, and we're going to take away your best opportunities to improve". Keeping the system in place is more or less just sticking to the old culture of elitism that we've been trying to move past. It's always going to give off the impression that we are punishing people for not being "good enough" at TASing. I can't accept that, especially as someone who praises and promotes how accessible TASing is while constantly working to make it even more accessible. Giving the way the voting is at the moment (9 in support of lessening or removing the system, only 1 in support of how it is, and 2 don't cares), I'm going to go ahead and revisit the limited users right now and see whether or not it's actually warranted for them. EDIT: I have reinstated submission privileges for 16 users. Most of them are inactive and have been for years, so it probably doesn't matter too much, but I like the symbolism regardless. Seven users with limited status were flipped to bans for a variety of reasons. As of April 14th, 2023, there are no Limited Users on the site.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Post subject: holy heckin' frick, it is trophies!!!
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Trophies have now been given out, and it sure didn't take me multiple months to do so!!!
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
There hasn't been a defined system on having your privs restored, but it has usually been promised if a better movie is created and sent to staff to check. I was once or twice sent a movie, but it was either still easily improvable or non-trivial to check how optimal it is (2-player mame-rr movies). Then I came up with a suggestion for limited users to try improving an existing publication, which then would make it obvious their skill has improved, and the privs would be restored. It's a fair criticism that this system doesn't really encourage people to improve, because I don't remember restoring anyone's submission privs.
The fact that no one's had privileges restored in recent memory tells me that either no one is trying to, no one has reached the bar we set, or it's some sort of mixture of the two. I'd be less critical of the system if we actually had a couple people work their way back out of being limited, but the act of being limited in the first place is a confidence killer from what I've seen. If anything, I think it's stressing too much improvement. No TASer isn't going to go from 4 rejections in a row to Aglar, but the whole process of limiting someone and telling them to prove their worth almost feels like we're forcing them to. Also, I'll be blunt: "Non-trivial to check how optimal it is" should not be a reason to put off restoring someone's submission privileges. Sure, MAME-rr is absolutely awful to work with, but this is almost literally saying "I know you're putting in the effort to improve, but I'm not going to put in the effort to verify that." If we're going to keep the system in place, we shouldn't be finding new and fun ways to continue holding people down. We should be finding new ways to encourage them to succeed.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Samsara wrote:
Quick note: This will be uncancelled and judged when BizHawk 2.9 is released.
oh no
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
rythin wrote:
Definitely not permanently (which I assume is how it is currently? I'm fairly new to the site so unsure) but a couple weeks, maybe a month could serve as a "cool down" period or maybe an alert that they really should try harder before submitting.
The current system encourages users to work with us to raise their skill levels to an acceptable point before we remove the status, so in theory it isn't permanent, but in practice I don't think we've ever had anyone get their privileges back, let alone many people who have actually taken up the offer of sticking around and receiving help. Most people we limited just left the site and never returned, which is why I feel it's only ever been a deterrent and not the motivation it was meant to be. A time limit makes more sense if we're going to end up keeping the role, but I still question why we would even consider keeping the role at all if it's mostly driven people away. The process of limiting also kinda works against the goal of getting users to improve, as limiting someone removes their biggest avenue to having their work seen. More people pay attention to submissions than anywhere else on the site. Userfiles tend to be overlooked and even the Discord channels for WIPs and feedback don't get a lot of talk outside of a select few people, so the workbench is really the best place for people to get feedback. I feel the site's starting to move more and more into being openly collaborative, with submissions often being improved and co-authored by other users, and I find that kind of environment to encourage individual improvement a lot better than "Nah, heck off, you're not good enough for us so we're not gonna let you submit". We recently had 6 submissions over the course of about 3 hours from a single user, and I specifically requested that we not take any action against it aside from the message I posted in the sixth submission. So far, one of those submissions led to a co-authored publication, and several others received improvements from the community, both as Userfiles and as new submissions. This to me feels like a much better outcome than if I or someone else had come to the decision to limit the user in question. It tells me that anything we could do with limiting, we could do better with an alternative approach: Giving the encouragement of collaboration to the community instead of the author led to new, optimized TASes being created and even published. Limiting would have just told people not to bother at all.
Darkman425 wrote:
I remember an old conversation about how some users sometimes spam a whole bunch of submissions in a short time span. I feel like in those cases giving the limited user role temporarily to someone who does that would make sense, even if it's for a week or something. It'd at least discourage holding onto a number of complete projects and sending them in all at once. Even then those situations are incredibly rare and can also just be handled by regular moderation methods.
That sort of thing was the main spark behind my thoughts on limiting as a whole. A few years back, klmz unhoarded 10 TASes over 2 days. By all definitions of what "submission spam" is and how we've applied Limited User in the past, this unhoard should have gotten them limited. That clearly didn't happen, though. The thing is, we've limited people for "submission spam" over far less than this: Maybe 3 or 4 runs, either on separate days or even days apart if my memory serves correctly. Limiting for spam makes sense only if we're consistent with it, but we're not. The only consistency is that we limit users because they don't submit optimal runs, and that's not a trait I want people to see when they're trying to submit. Unhoarding may be the only thing that would get a user limited without being banned in the future, but even then I don't think it's necessary to limit that as long as we know there's going to be an end to it. Similar to what I wrote in response to rythin, I think we can always do better with an alternative approach. Something like a universal submission limit (maybe 3 per day at most?) would drastically cut back on unhoarding while also sounding like a reasonable thing to implement.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
EDIT (2023-04-22): The community says we either shouldn't or that we should only do it in extreme cases. The Limited User role has been removed from all users who had it, and going forward we will either remove the role entirely or only apply it rarely and less harshly.
Been a grip since we've had a classic Samsara Site Thread, huh? To quickly explain for those not in the know, we have a role called Limited User. Giving a user this role prevents them from being able to submit TASes while leaving their account otherwise untouched. Historically, this role has been handed out for a variety of reasons: Some of those reasons, like genuine spam submissions, make perfect sense, i.e we see actual abuse of the submission system and we aim to prevent it. Other reasons, however, include "submitting suboptimal movies a little too often", and I've spent a lot of time thinking about those in particular. Is it really necessary for us to keep doing that? Currently, we have 23 people with the Limited User role, and I believe only two of them are still active. Most of these limited users were limited purely based on the TASes they were submitting. There was no malice behind their submissions whatsoever. Given how the site has been progressing over the past couple years, and how we want it to keep progressing moving into the future, why should we be punishing users for literally doing what the site is designed for? Especially now that we're moving more towards collaboration and teamwork, telling people they're not "good enough" to submit is maybe the farthest we get from encouraging that sort of collaboration and teamwork. Allowing suboptimal submissions to make it to the workbench at all means more people get to see them, and that could inspire improvements. Every submission is a boon in that way. If we want people to get better, allowing them to submit gives them the best chance at inviting feedback, doesn't it? As a general rule, I only want to prevent people from submitting if they're being malicious with it. Actual spam like I linked above, troll posting, malicious links and/or repeated rule violations, toxic behavior... But in considering what we want to limit, it led me to consider the question in the thread title. Everything that I'd consider worthy of limiting users for, I'd also consider worthy of banning users for. If someone is abusing the submission system, why should we continue to allow them to have the opportunity to take their abusive behavior elsewhere on the site? Preventing submissions is one thing, but they still have forum access, PM access, even wiki access in some cases, so it makes sense to restrict those as well if there's a possibility that they'll be abused. I'd like to hear some community opinions on this, particularly because it affects y'all far more than it affects us. There may be a good reason to limit but not ban that I'm not thinking of, or maybe I'm alone in thinking we need to stop limiting altogether, so give your thoughts. Regardless of the decision we reach here, I'd like to re-evaluate all of the Limited Users very soon, maybe even within the next day or two if this thread reaches a consensus quickly.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
I'm leaning towards simply fully allowing window resizing and OOB mouse input for Flash TASes.
  • If it results in a game breaking glitch, fine, we then can have a movie that uses it, and a movie that avoids it, both in Standard.
  • If it results in smaller glitches, we can have a movie that utilizes them in Standard, and a more appealing movie that avoids them - in Alt.
  • If the difference is hard to notice, it's just a speed-entertainment trade-off, and up to the author, and can be a part of any branch.
This submission and the others linked all pretty much exist because Memory and I were supportive of the idea, so I'll just openly restate that I'm in support of all of this. The comparison between this and L+R/U+D is pretty much perfect. It may not be possible under the intended circumstances (stock controllers, websites), but the inputs are still possible in the intended environments (L+R is recognized on console, window resizing and OoB inputs are possible on the official Flash player). If we allow L+R, there's no reason not to allow this. The quoted list looks good to me, although I'd even go as far as saying that avoiding glitches should be a universally standard category. It feels a little arbitrary to say that it's standard in some cases but not all of them.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Finally, a real submission. I feel like people have been taking the rebrand to ACEVideos really poorly for the most part and have been submitting protest runs, but I'm glad to see at least one person is taking us seriously. Thank you.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
SWF taken from Flashpoint. Filename: egg7.swf CRC32: 21200D6E MD5: 9E80E92EE8FEA3678FF9509C30C6D984 --width 700 --height 650 You're absolutely right I'm making this a post because I don't want to change the submission text right now. Catch me in 6 hours at time of posting for that.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Samsara wrote:
I was messing around with the corrupted party member (a glitch I specifically avoided because it makes it impossible to switch characters) and found that there's a lot more to it than I originally thought.
What the hell is even happening Link to video EDIT: I'm theorizing that the glitched attack at 0:17 did something like negative 20000 damage, since the enemy HP values go wild on it. I've been working on trying to find a way to efficiently and accurately produce the glitched party member state. I can't seem to get the "creepypasta" effect to work again (may my AFD idea rest in peace), but I've found a lot of weird effects like the above video in the process.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Prior judgements aren't treated as precedents anymore, because our rules have changed so much over the past couple years to allow more things to come through. Whatever game it was that was rejected for not being different enough at the time most likely has a shot at being accepted and published today. In general, it's best not to assume that a decision is going to go one way or another ahead of time. I wouldn't even recommend Judges do it. Hell, my earlier posts in the thread prove that not even I should be doing it. There's a possibility it can go either way, but the only way to find out for sure is for everything to be examined during judgement.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Ports to different platforms are separate publications. I don't think we even have the ability to do cross-platform obsoletions on the site. EDIT: Ignore this as well, it's case-by-case.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
Obsoletes [2549] SMS Aladdin, Disney's by Johnnypoiro in 09:46.77
Nnnnnnno, it doesn't. EDIT: Ignore this, it's case-by-case.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2120)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
DrD2k9 wrote:
LogansGamingRoom wrote:
when i try to go on the home page, it says this: System Error An unexpected error has occurred. The information has been logged and will be investigated as we continue to improve the reliability of the site. Status Code 500 - Internal Server Error
The problem is being worked on.
Fixed now. There was an issue with a recent submission that caused any page trying to display it to break. The broken submission was deleted and the issue that caused it to break was fixed, so it shouldn't happen again.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | Cohost
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.